SOMETIMES BOXING FANS, TV reporters and "experts" mention a, what I call, "bombastic statistic". That's a figure that sounds good but is pretty useless in assessing quality.

It's similar to a bombastic statement like "As a child I started to read and write earlier than John F. Kennedy" or "I could use forks and knives earlier than Albert Einstein".

It has some value as an anecdote but is only of limited use as an actual achievement.

Comparing walk-ins and hair cuts

Let's check some examples of bombastic statistics of boxing:

Number of times you became a world championUsually Evan Fields is introduced as "X times world champion" which indeed sounds impressive but basically means that he lost or retired (x-1)*times.

Length of reign (= how many years you've been the world champion)

Age of first world title win

Consecutive KOs in world championships

The least losses during prime

Number of fame-name fights

…

Longest boxing reign

Let's take the above mentioned "Length of reign". Joe Louis holds the record of "longest reigning world champ". He was champion from 1937 to 1950 (13.2 years). He won/defended his title in 28 fights in this time, that's equivalent to 2 fights a year. In other words: A champ who would be more active (let's say, 4x a year) (1943 and 1945 Joe Louis didn't fight at all, World War II) would have a reign half as long as Louis. Thus not Louis' reign (13.2) years should be impressive but rather his "number world championship wins".

Age of first world title win -OR- Youngest heavyweight world champion

Let's check another bombastic statistic… "Age of first world title win" (Tyson fans and AliFans love this!):

And now what? What conclusions for the ranking can you draw from it? That Tyson should be above Ali? That Riddick Bowe should be above Lennox Lewis? That Floyd Patterson should be above Larry Holmes?

Additionally the statistic is inconclusive because the American interpretation "being the youngest = exceptionally strong boxer" could be very wrong and should be rather interpreted the other way around as "being youngest = exceptionally weak era", which may be especially true with Muhammad Ali who became the second youngest by beating the Eric Esch of the 70ies (Sonny Liston), who himself only became a world champion by beating a cruiser (189 lbs, Floyd Patterson). But, that's another story.

Most boxing fights in a single year

Here you have another bombastic statistic "The highest number of fights in a single year". This is usually mentioned when fans complains about the little fights that boxers have nowadays and express their wishes to return to such times when Joe Louis fought 12x in a single year.

This bombastic statistic shows you not only useless arguments ("Boxer A has more consecutive wins than Boxer B") but also useless counter-arguments ("But Boxer B has more consecutive KOs than Boxer A").

Each of the boxers Marciano, Klitschko, Bowe, Louis is leading in some category while Ali and Lennox are leading in none.

End words

I am sure you can invent a lot of statistics that make one boxer look good and another bad.

But for a stat to not be useless it should pass the litmus test: Does it increase the chances of the boxer with the better statistic to win against a boxer with the worse statistic?

Useless boxing statistics -OR- Evan Fields is the greatest world champion, 4.7 out of 5 based on 12 ratings

Advertisement

Donate/Socialize...

Comments (32)

How convenient of you to leave out some vital statistics that make Klitschko's seem human.

1) You conveniently forget that Vitali nor Wladmir never faced an opponent, who were taller or atleast equally tall ( 6 foot 6 or more) or had better reach than them (81 inches or more). Only Hashim Rahman had a bigger reach, but he was atleast 4 inches shorter than either Klitschko.

In boxing, your height and reach play a major role in deciding matches. A tall boxer with a better reach can easily outbox his opponents for rounds and tire them to submission.

2) Let's not forgot both Klitschko's started dominating only post 2004 when all the good modern heavyweights like Mccall, Bowe, Holyfield, Tua, Golotta, Lewis had either retired or were inactive.

3) A boxer's longetivity and title reigns are judged by the quality of opponents he has faced. Let;'s ignore pre-1980 fighters as you will always fall on the weight statistic.
As far as I am concerned, Weight is only ONE of the deciding factors in a fight and not the most important factor. Height and reach are the bigger ones that decide fights.

Post 1994, the champions had to always face tough contenders. Evander Holyfield had to contend with the tough Riddick Bowe, who waged wars in 3 matches with him. 2)Lewis, who was a genuine heavyweight even as per your standards had to fight some really good fighters
1) Tommy Morrision – Genuine heavyweight with a razor left hook.
2) Donovon Ruddock – Good solid puncher, who gave Tyson tough battle in two fights.
3) Andrew Golota – The foul pole, who gave a hiding to the 260 pound, 6 foot 5 Riddick Bowe.
4) Evandar Holyfield – Though not a small heavyweight, he was a tough one to beat because of his solid chin.
5) Mike Tyson – Almost washed up, but was still dangerous at times.
6) David Tua – Who can forgot his 19 second knockout of John Ruiz and 30 second knockout of Michael Mooorer.
7) Hashim Rahman – The one, who upset Lewis, but caused thrased in the rematch. A solid puncher with almost 70% knockouts. Had a 82 inch reach and was a good fighter.
8) Oliver Mccall – Who knocked out Lewis via TKO, but suffered drug problems. BUt never seemed to do anything worthwhile in the rematch
9) Shannon Briggs – A young heavyweight during 1994, had decent punching power, stood at 6 foot 4 and weighed 230 plus pounds.
10) Michael Grant – A tall 6 foot 7 boxer with a solid record till he met Lewis.

Basically, Lewis had atleast 10 solid boxers, 8 of them being former title holders in his resume.
1) Lewis faced two boxers taller than him (Vitali and Michael Grant)
2) Lewis had to fight contenders, who always had a punchers chance (Tommy MOrrison, David Tua, Tyson, and Ruddock) – Please note that none of these contenders were flats slobs like the ones Wladmir faced.
3) Compare these with Wladmir's best opponents 1) Chris Byrd 2) Ross Puritty 3)Brewster 4) Sam Peter 4) Oleg Maskaev 5) John Ruiz 6) Sultan Ibrahimov and 7) Hashim Rahman – Who defeated the better ones??????

I just compared two fighters of the modern era with objective arguments. The point is that Wladmir is a good fighter and a great champion of his era. True he scored lot of KOs, but his range of opponents were far from good, with few exceptions.
2) Wladmir is not even the best fighter in his family, Vitali is
3) Vitali has wrecked almost all of his opponents, was never knocked down, never lost any fight on points. Wladmir has been knocked out by average fighters.
4) While Brewster, Sanders, and Puritty were good fighters, they never lacked the firepower to trouble Lewis. Puritty had an iron chin, but so did Jake La Motta and George Chuvalo, neither of them managed to beat their top contenders.

You conveniently forget that Vitali nor Wladmir never faced an opponent, who were taller or atleast equally tall ( 6 foot 6 or more) or had better reach than them (81 inches or more).

1) You wrongly assume that it's their height that makes them beat others. But that's not true. There are a lot of tall boxers who are far less successful than the Klitschkos.
2) Wladimir Klitschko is (based on his own statement) around 6'5.5" (in the morning) and 6'5" (in the evening). He fought 7 opponents 6'5" (or taller). He KOed all of them. He fought 3 opponents reachier than him. He KOed all of them.
3) Since all stats fail to discredit Wladimir Klitschko, complainers resort to body stats because body characteristics are undeniable. It's a cheap shot to complain about body attributes in a sport that is based mainly on body attributes (speed, weight, chin etc).

Let's not forgot both Klitschko's started dominating only post 2004 when all the good modern heavyweights like Mccall, Bowe, Holyfield, Tua, Golotta, Lewis had either retired or were inactive.

Klitschkos started in the 90s. They were ducked from the beginning.

A boxer's longetivity and title reigns are judged by the quality of opponents he has faced. Let;'s ignore pre-1980 fighters as you will always fall on the weight statistic.
As far as I am concerned, Weight is only ONE of the deciding factors in a fight and not the most important factor. Height and reach are the bigger ones that decide fights.

Weight is THE most important factor. Boxing is divided into weight divisions and not height division for exactly this reason: There is no other factor more important than body mass (= weight).

That there are only so little good TALL boxers who could face the Klitschkos shows you actually that height does not substitute quality. In fact there are many boxers taller than the Klitschkos but only the Klitschkos have piled up this impressive record.

Post 1994, the champions had to always face tough contenders. Evander Holyfield had to contend with the tough Riddick Bowe, who waged wars in 3 matches with him. 2)Lewis, who was a genuine heavyweight even as per your standards had to fight some really good fighters

But you make the same mistake as so many:
Just because the Klitschkos make it look easy doesn't mean their opponents are bad.

Basically, Lewis had atleast 10 solid boxers, 8 of them being former title holders in his resume.

Yes, Lennox Lewis might be the best heavyweight boxer who ever lived. No need to list his opponents. He has an impressive heavyweight record.

But you forgot to mention that Lennox ducked Byrd (he even gave up his belt to not match Byrd) and refused to face any other southpaw in his career (for example Corrie Sanders).

2) Wladmir is not even the best fighter in his family, Vitali is

Except that Wlad holds 5 belts and his brother 1… and that Vitali will retire and Wlad will continue reigning.

3) Vitali has wrecked almost all of his opponents, was never knocked down, never lost any fight on points. Wladmir has been knocked out by average fighters.

Yeah, and has approx. 15 fights less than Wladimir, as has Lennox.

4) While Brewster, Sanders, and Puritty were good fighters, they never lacked the firepower to trouble Lewis.

Excellent post from Aswin. But comprehensively answered also. However Aswin does raise the issue that Lennox Lewis and Wladimir Klitschko and Vitali are very evenly matched. Lennox DID face great opposition. That they were better than Wladimirs is only subjective but is certainly plausible. However like Wlad, Lennox also dominated. He defeated all the major opposition, when he lost to Rahmann and McCall they were considered upsets, as with Wlads losses. Perhaps a Lennox-Wladimir match up article would be a good idea. The anti-ali/pro-wlad theme has been fully played out now. It's a total mismatch to compare any boxer pre-Holmes, pre 1980s to modern Heavyweights, that is incontrovertible. But the reliance on both stats and common sense breaks down to more heated debate when discussing fighters of the modern era.

Yeah, Wladimir has been knocked out, but he seems unbeatable in his last 10 fights. Everybody needs to learn from mistakes / gain experience and Wladimir is in his prime now, obviously.

I think it's time for you to accept the Klitschko's in your heart wessley. Their dominance is in the HW division is the best so far. Ali cannot stay the greatest of alltime forever (he never was imho, but if he was, he has been dethroned).

I am not being unfair, i am fair and astute minded, i will say that wlad is a very good/great even heavyweight, but he is not the best of his own era, hasnt beat any hall of famers..how then can he be compared to greats of the past who beat greats of the past?? it makes no sense.

At most you could argue that he is the best of the 'super dupa heavy weights" of 3 fighters..even then most people would agree that his brother is marginally better than him..someone he wont fight.
I will say that there is an arguement that he is in the top 12 of all time heavyweights…which means he is a great fighter, i would put him somewhere around where i would stick mike tyson..due to both not fighting elite fighters.

And one more thing..MR ADMIN guy, just because you wrote articles making up little rules that refere to your own misguided opinions doesnt make them facts..neither does it validate your response..my nationality has nothing to do with this sorry, i love lots of fighters that are not british/american..yes including even vitali klitchko who i always try to watch.

What a stupid comment. Holy and Mike are two of the greatest boxers of all time. And if Rahman and Botha are bums than Wlad is a bum beater too because he also faced them. It is unbelievable what some russian fans are sending here.

Not wrong, this Russian guy is not doing his nation any credit lol. Wesley sometimes you've had a couple of good points but your definition of great is not the same as ours. "Hall of Fame" should be totally irrelevant. What is relevant is that Wladimir and Lennox, and most of their opponents, could take most of the golden age "champions" not just their contempory's to the cleaners.

lol all the top boxers are bums, Lewis fought punch bags mainly. When I thought about this comment at work the other day I suddenly burst out laughing lol. You funny Russians, must have emptied the vodka bottle and got a little surly the night he wrote that. We don't want no trouble now haha ;)

Lewis has fought punchbags mainly. Holyfield is a bum. Tyson is a bum, Botha, Grant, Golota, Rahman are bums. And these guys are Lewis' best wins.
Yes you are right. Some russian Klitschko fan is bashing good boxers and author is silent. Wake up Admin!! Oh I forget that he is not bashing Klitschkos. If he do so than author of this article would be all over him. I can see that fans of Evander Holyfield, Mike Tyson or any great fighter of the past are just not welcome here. And to be honest Lewis koed Rahman in even brutal fashion than Wlad (Lewis vs. Rahman II).

He should apply the same treatment to Wlad fans and Russian/Europeans on here as he does with Ali Fans British/Americans, fair is fair. We may be fans of different boxers and see things differently sure but…

And admin you should definitely be defending the aforementioned slandered boxers, they are some of the best boxers of all time being labelled as bums, if an American started calling Wlad a bum you would be all over it. Fair is fair.

Admin said: "But you make the same mistake as so many:
Just because the Klitschkos make it look easy doesn't mean their opponents are bad."
Well, I can also say that the fights are easy because they are bad….. You can neither prove nor disprove me wrong. Perspectives are perspectives…..

good statistics, but you never look at the context. Hasim Rahman KOed lewis in South Africa in a place, which is almost 1500+ metres above sea level. Lewis lost the match due to his arrogance and lack of preparation… But then he made up for it knocking out Hasim Rahman in Round 4 in their rematch. All this when Rahman was a LIVE BODY… not a has-been when Wladmir met him.

Ray Mercer- You gotta be kidding me… How old again was Ray when he met Wladmir???? Ray was almost into his mid 30s and he had already got his chin tested by many power punchers such as Lennox…. As we all know every great chin can only stand up to so much. I give full credit to Wlad for his KO over Mercer, but that proves nothing because Ray Mercer was ageing and his chin was never the same. Furthermore, Lewis had met him when Ray was at his peak. Check the dates of his fights with Lewis and Wladmir and see how bad his form deteriorates since his fight with Lewis.

Admin said: "But you forgot to mention that Lennox ducked Byrd (he even gave up his belt to not match Byrd) and refused to face any other southpaw in his career (for example Corrie Sanders)."

Lol, Chris Byrd…. That Southpaw boxer, whose promoter Don King paid Lewis 1-2 million dollars not to fight him???? So much for your statistics…. Wanna know what would happen if Byrd had fought Lewis. Refer to the Byrd vs Wlad Rematch… Byrd might be slick, but never had the punching power to cause an upset. With Lennox' skill level and experience, I doubt he would have let Byrd run around for 12 rounds???/ Care to disagree, ask Don King why he paid Lewis 2 million to step aside.

Admin said: Klitschkos started in the 90s. They were ducked from the beginning.

Bulllsh*t, give me a proof where it shows that a boxer ducked Wladmir. Nobody knew about Wladmir an Vitali until they became champions. Please don't give random statements like this. Wladmir was an upcoming fight when Lewis was fighting Holyfield….. Even then, Wladmir lost to a contender called Ross Puritty in his 24-25th fight…. So he was not considered to be a great opponent. Hell, even when Lewis vs Vitali took place, Vitali was considered as the stronger brother. Wladmir was known as the Boxer with great punching power, but no heart. Check the boxing articles of the 90s and you will see why….. It is not his fault that Wladmir peaked when all the other heavyweight champions were well into their mid 30s..But saying that other boxers ducked him is ridiculous.. How can Lennox duck Wladmir when there was no public/professional demand for a fight…. Wladimir would have fought Lennox had it not been for his Lewis losing to Rahman and then Wladmir losing to Corrie Sanders…

All good points Aswin, you can throw the same sort of logic back at him although I personally don't agree Wlads opponents are bad. You can't exactly call not showing up to fight in prime condition or the weather or elevation a reason to nullify Lewis loss to Rahman though. By that logic I could claim that Wladimir didn't take one of his opponents seriously or that he was not feeling well or something that suited the circumstance. Ray Mercer is a fair call but I fail to draw any conclusions from that one fight for either Wlad or Lennox as to who is better.

But Lennox would NEVER have "ducked" Chris Byrd lol that is laughable. I don't know why the admin would try to spin it that way, he admits Lennox may be the greatest boxer and then claims he ducked a "featherfist".

And the whole divison ducked early Wlad? Bullsh*t.

These are bold claims admin. You should really explain it for us or refine your statements somewhat.

Admin said: Klitschkos started in the 90s. They were ducked from the beginning.

I AGREE THAT this is a complete bullsh*t. I actually heard a rumour that Evander Holyfield challenged Klitschkos back in late 90s when he was still the champion (probably 1998) and they refused to fight him. They were just too green for such a great oponent.

Ducked from the beginning, in the 90s? That in my opinion is the STUPIDEST thing the admin has said on this whole blog. There would have been absolutely no reason to duck Wladimir then and at that stage of his career, when he was still green he would have been in with hard and seasoned opposition. I would not be surprised if what you say about Holyfield is true and truth is I don't know if he would have been able to match Lewis at this time. Sorry admin but you ARE A KLITSCHKO FAN lol. He is a great boxer but he was not born to be able to beat every heavyweight in the division as soon as he could walk, he is only human.

Likewise, there are only some "Ali Fans" if you'se will be called that who put forth good arguments, same as Wlad ones. I sometimes bash certain boxer too when I see statement I don't agree with but am open to criticism in return for that lol I will either give better reason or refine.

Of course not ;) He invites "man love" comments by his baseless accusations when feels cornered. I wonder if he is being comical sometimes on purpose to make site more entertaining lol. Aswin uses context and quality which are not so well represented by stats to make point very well. I hope to earn distinction of WladFan not WladFant as well lol.

Even the title of this article is implying that Evander Holyfield is not great because his statistics have been somewhat skewed and he has mentioned that negatively in height and weight article. When we all know that in reality he was one of very best because of quality of opposition he fought, context of lot of his defeats and fact he continued to box well past his prime (officially still not even retired lol) and never ducked anyone, in fact actively sought out toughest opponents and barely missed many strong opponents at all throughout career. But the little math table has him with 10 losses now so in the bin with Evander lol damaging to credibility of article before it is even opened.

Holy was fighting just too long. I was very happy when he faced Valuev and at such an old age showed good performance (it was great timing for a match 20th december). When Haye was comparing himself to Holy he was not kidding. They are very similiar. Just watch Lewis/Evander II and than Wlad/Haye fights and tell me that those two matches are not similiar.

YES! I wrote same thing I think to you in another article. I was always scratching for a comparable fighter today to Holyfield of the 90's. A lot of the cruisers that moved up to HW today are good fighters they just have to contend with my Ukranian friend who is too much of a bully for them lol. But Evander was clearly a cut above this level and was able to put it together quite well against Wlad's equal Lennox and with Bowe, I forgot how menacing Bowe was until the other night lol. Anyway although he's a very brash bastard I was delighted to find someone who fit the profile nicely. Would love to see Haye/Holyfield article. I think it would be a tremendous fight. Not sure what way author would go. On one hand he trashes Haye against Wlad unfairly but also says he's super fast in another spot to promote Wlad's opponents (?) But has hinted towards Evander Holyfield being a loser of some sort and featherfist at times, despite all the tough wars and good wins he had, something that Haye has not done extensively yet so will be interesting.

We have seen and heard about a lot of great fighters over the years but among so many of them there is no such thing as any one of them being the greatest.

I would bet that no one is at their best all of the time, some are at their best only a small percentage of the time.

The ones who stayed champion so many years are the ones who was at their best most often.

Joe Louis and Max Schmeling were an even match in the first fight, but what happened in the second fight may have had something to do with all of the hate brought on by the mind set that since he was a German he was also a Nazi which he was,nt.

At that time Max Schmelings wife and mother were prevented from coming to the united states because the Nazi,s were afraid that Schmeling would defect.

The Nazi Party publicis also issued statements that a black man could not defeat Schmeling, and that Schmeling's purse from the fight would be used to build more German tanks.

By that time it could very well be that Schmeling was not even fit to be in the ring with anyone
much less a great like Joe Louis.

John Sullivan, Jack Johnson, James Corbet Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, and others right up to date were and are the greatest, there is no way any one can be determined to be greatest of the greatest.

Some has guts some has muscle some has bronze some has know how and some can adapt to the style of their opponent.

It has been said that if you could find some one with the guts of Tex Cobb, the size of Larry Holmes or Gerry Cooney, the know how of Joe Louis and the ruggedness of Jack Demsey and the patience of Rocky Marciano you would have a fighting machine.